I was under the impression that trolling was simply the deliberate stating of a position contrary to or derogatory to that of your target, regardless of one's personal position, in order to create an emotional response rather than a rational one.

PirateKing:I was under the impression that trolling was simply the deliberate stating of a position contrary to or derogatory to that of your target, regardless of one's personal position, in order to create an emotional response rather than a rational one.

PirateKing:I was under the impression that trolling was simply the deliberate stating of a position contrary to or derogatory to that of your target, regardless of one's personal position, in order to create an emotional response rather than a rational one.

Just calling someone an asshole does not a troll make.

Trolls are also assholes, but an asshole is not necessarily a troll. Make sense?

If you're posting in a tattoo, tipping, or tax thread, then you are a troll.

/always posts in those threads//would never hire a person with tattoos at my small business because if I take on more more employee then my accountant says I will be over $250,000 and therefore make less money and besides, TIPS stands for To Insure Prompt Service.

Dovetailing nicely with his assertion that the new definition of "troll" is "someone who says something you don't like," is Fark's longtime definition of "troll" as "anyone who dares express the conservative point of view, especially in stimulating, thought-provoking ways."

FTFA:"What if the point of the column wasn't to make any coherent argument about iTunes at all but instead to kick up a hornet's nest-to get Apple fans frothingly riled up for no good reason other than to laugh at their misplaced passion over music software?"

To be fair that can be quite entertaining. Fanboiis of all strips really do deserve to be trolled over and over.

FTA: Sure, my piece and its headline were hyperbolic...But that over-the-top stance was intentional, a rhetorical device to make a point about iTunes' awfulness. So why had some people misinterpreted my passion as a sign of insincerity?

Sure, I said a few inflammatory things in the hopes of generating some more page-clicks for my article, but why do people think that's disingenuous or something?

One of my favorite trolls who I haven't seen for a while (sounds like Erection) had this awesome technique where he would take your entire post and disagree factually with one single sentence of it. This would require the victim to post a three paragraph post complete with links to prove that one fact.

Then, the troll would disagree with one fact in that post using only a few sentences. And on and on. It was awesome. Farkers fell for it every time. He's got to be someone else now.

There are also a few alts who gang up in threads here that y'all always miss. Whenever someone posts a dumb zinger and someone else posts "ohsnap.jpg", that's an alt.

The overuse of the troll accusation in contemporary Internet culture comes from the same epistemological lock that the "my opposition doesn't think" meme does: the idea that one's own opinion is not merely correct, but the only sensible conclusion.

They branch only when it comes to the conclusion one makes about one's opponent. In the unthinking-opposition meme, the conclusion is that the opposition just hasn't thought things through enough, because obviously they'd agree with you if they were thinking deeply about these things the way you do. In the malicious-opposition meme, the conclusion is that the opposition doesn't really believe what they're saying: they actually think just as you do, but they're out to hurt people, and making these arguments is an effective way of doing that.

Needless to say, these are both ridiculous. Their spread is doing truly ludicrous levels of harm to national and international discourse. The problem lies in figuring out how to counteract it, particularly when political parties have found it so useful for motivating their own bases.

FTFA is not really saying anything new, or even stuff I haven't read or don't already know about, like this is new stuff or something (??) Geesh, really Slate? This guys should really learn to get more good authors who don't waste time posting stuff that isn't relevant to anyone's actual interests not posting dumb articles that are maybe only a tiny bit like things people want to read.

TL;DR I mean geesh what does iTunes have to do with any of this at all even? The author is obviously not having a good argument or even trying, like a student from my class could do better, so sad.

aselene:Dovetailing nicely with his assertion that the new definition of "troll" is "someone who says something you don't like," is Fark's longtime definition of "troll" as "anyone who dares express the conservative point of view, especially in stimulating, thought-provoking ways."

The last person on Fark that I saw express a conservative point of view in a stimulating, thought-provoking way was hubiestubert. How'd that work out for you?

Cythraul:PirateKing: I was under the impression that trolling was simply the deliberate stating of a position contrary to or derogatory to that of your target, regardless of one's personal position, in order to create an emotional response rather than a rational one.

Just calling someone an asshole does not a troll make.

Trolls are also assholes, but an asshole is not necessarily a troll. Make sense?

Oh, it does. A serious look at it shows that people call 'troll' on anyone they disagree with, regardless of situation. But with two superficially similar posts, it's possible for one to be a massive troll, and the other to be totally legit, as the label applies to the intentions of the poster, not to the content of the post.

So a true believer isn't a troll, no matter how poorly constructed and offensive the post might be, whereas a poeslaw response that is identical is a troll, since the poster just wants to get under your skin.

Millennium:The overuse of the troll accusation in contemporary Internet culture comes from the same epistemological lock that the "my opposition doesn't think" meme does: the idea that one's own opinion is not merely correct, but the only sensible conclusion.

They branch only when it comes to the conclusion one makes about one's opponent. In the unthinking-opposition meme, the conclusion is that the opposition just hasn't thought things through enough, because obviously they'd agree with you if they were thinking deeply about these things the way you do. In the malicious-opposition meme, the conclusion is that the opposition doesn't really believe what they're saying: they actually think just as you do, but they're out to hurt people, and making these arguments is an effective way of doing that.

Needless to say, these are both ridiculous. Their spread is doing truly ludicrous levels of harm to national and international discourse. The problem lies in figuring out how to counteract it, particularly when political parties have found it so useful for motivating their own bases.

But is it possible to unintentionally troll? For example, have you ever observed when someone has been defeated in an argument and they move into non-sequiturs and red herrings as a way to prolong the argument or open a new attack? Isn't that the same as trolling.

PirateKing:I was under the impression that trolling was simply the deliberate stating of a position contrary to or derogatory to that of your target, regardless of one's personal position, in order to create an emotional response rather than a rational one.

Just calling someone an asshole does not a troll make.

That is the definition of a troll literally everywhere else on the internet except Fark, yes.

Rapmaster2000:Millennium: The overuse of the troll accusation in contemporary Internet culture comes from the same epistemological lock that the "my opposition doesn't think" meme does: the idea that one's own opinion is not merely correct, but the only sensible conclusion.

They branch only when it comes to the conclusion one makes about one's opponent. In the unthinking-opposition meme, the conclusion is that the opposition just hasn't thought things through enough, because obviously they'd agree with you if they were thinking deeply about these things the way you do. In the malicious-opposition meme, the conclusion is that the opposition doesn't really believe what they're saying: they actually think just as you do, but they're out to hurt people, and making these arguments is an effective way of doing that.

Needless to say, these are both ridiculous. Their spread is doing truly ludicrous levels of harm to national and international discourse. The problem lies in figuring out how to counteract it, particularly when political parties have found it so useful for motivating their own bases.

But is it possible to unintentionally troll? For example, have you ever observed when someone has been defeated in an argument and they move into non-sequiturs and red herrings as a way to prolong the argument or open a new attack? Isn't that the same as trolling.

Or does trolling require intent?

intent doesn't a troll make

yes. i put "make" at the end of the sentence to MAKE myself sound SMARTER

Oh great, now even Slate is trying to deflect about 0bama's failings in Benghazi by shouting TROLL! Is there no end to this lamestream MSM media distortion? Don't they care about the four Americans killed by 0bama's neglect?

Rapmaster2000:One of my favorite trolls who I haven't seen for a while (sounds like Erection) had this awesome technique where he would take your entire post and disagree factually with one single sentence of it. This would require the victim to post a three paragraph post complete with links to prove that one fact.

Then, the troll would disagree with one fact in that post using only a few sentences. And on and on. It was awesome. Farkers fell for it every time. He's got to be someone else now.

There are also a few alts who gang up in threads here that y'all always miss. Whenever someone posts a dumb zinger and someone else posts "ohsnap.jpg", that's an alt.